Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Dear Rama Bhaktas, At the risk of a charge of repetition, I would like to bring to your notice the following extracts which are relevant in the present context. Singing the glories of Rama truly benefits us. Gandhiji derived great mental strength by chanting Sri Rama Mantra. He has said that this belief was inculcated in him by his nurse Rambha when he was a child. Nothing could take Gandhiji away from the rock of his faith in Truth, and Rama Nama was the line anchoring him unto it. Up early in the still very dark, early hours of the 25th, Bapu wrote to a friend in Gujarai: "no one can harm a person who is sustained by Ramanama. I believe firmly in this principle. It is by the grace of that God that I am able to remain calm even though there is conflagration all around. Had it not been for Rama Nama, I would have broken down by now. That is why I proclaim at the top of my voice that I dance as Rama wills. We are all in this world to do our duty. I believe that not a leaf moves without his command. Look at the pride of man: he thinks he does everything! But God is magnanimous and only laughs at man's ignorance. Now you will understand where I stand. " Gandhi's was not blind faith but a dynamic one and he proved its effectiveness in his own life. He proved also the famous (anonymous) Indian saying about the art of weaving the cloth of our life: 'Weave in Faith; God will provide the thread', That is where the importance of Faith comes in as an aid in cultivating the spiritual mind. But it is very difficult task since we are always assailed by logical doubts which someone likened to the horns of a charging Rhino. Attempting to judge Rama with our present knowledge based on logic, perhaps, might never succeed. It is in this context that I am quoting below from C.Rajagopalachari's wise observations. Dasan, M.K. Krishnaswamy Slaying of Vaali - Rajaji's comment: "All who are born must die. This is the law. I do not therefore grieve for my death. Still, your sin is great in killing me in this treacherous way." Vaali, son of Indra, reproached Raama thus with his dying breath. And all this is fully set out by Vaalmeeki, the divine poet, as well as by Kamban. Against this accusation, what defence could Raama offer? Vaalmeeki has it that Raama gave some explanation with which Vaali was satisfied. But I am omitting all this as pointless and pray that the learned may forgive me. What I think is that an avataar is an avataar and that among the sorrows that the Lord and His consort had to endure in their earthly incarnation, this liability to have their actions weighed on the earthly scale is a part. Earlier, while narrating the Soorpanakha episode (where Lakshmana disfigures her face), Rajaji observes: "Let those who find faults in Rama see faults. If these critics faultlessly pursue dharma and avoid in their own lives the flaws they discover in Rama, the bhaktas of Sri Rama will indeed welcome it with joy. If they exhibit the virtues of Rama and add to these more virtues and greater flawlessness, who can complain?" .................................................. ..................................................... Raama erred in running after the magic deer to please his wife. Consequent to this, difficulties and sorrows and conflicts of duty pursued him. If we keep in mind that when God takes a lower and limited form by His own ordinance, limitations follow and we should not be confused thereby. This is my humble view as against other explanations propounded by the pious." On Ramayana (Extracts from Ramayana by C. Rajagopalachari) "The traditional orthodox view is that Vaalmeeki wrote the Ramayana during the life-time of Ramachandra. Judging from normal experience, however, it would appear that the story of Rama had been in existence, though not as a written work, long before Valmeeki wrote his epic. It looks as though Valmeeki gave form to a story that had been handed down from generation to generation. That probably explains some of the difficult features in the story-e.g., the slaying of Vaali and Sita's exile under Rama's orders (in Uttara Ramayanam). In Valmeeki's work, Rama is portrayed as a great and unique man, not as an incarnation of God. True, in some chapters there are references to him as an avataar of God, but in the body of the narrative, the Rama pictured by Sage Valmeeki is not God himself but a great prince endowed with divine qualities. Bven during Valmeeki's days, the idea was prevalent, to some extent, that Rama was an avataar. Centuries later, Kamban and Tulsidaas sang the Ramaayana, and by that time it had come to be accepted that Sri Rama was an avataar of Vishnu. Rama and Krishna were synonyms for Vishnu: and Vishnu, in turn, meant Rama or Krishna. Temples had come into existence with ritual worship of Rama as God. In a situation like that, how could the later-poets portray Rama as a mere hero? Any such attempt would have failed. Kamban and Tulsidaas were devotees of the highest order. They were very different from historians and novelists. ............................................................. ............................................................. Thus was the holy Valmeeki-Ramayana born. The tale of the Lord and his consort born as mortals, experiencing human sorrow and establishing dharma on earth, was sung by the Rishi in words of matchless beauty. And Brahma's words have come true: "As long as the mountains stand and the rivers flow so long shall the Ramaayana be cherished among men and save them from sin." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 May I ask you, how Lord Rama has to kill the Golden Deer ( Maricha), when Sita only asked Rama to get the Deer for her Andhapuram. If Lord Rama was unable to get hold of the Deer, it is wise thing to let the deer go, than to Kill. What is the objective here for Killing the Deer, when it is meant to caught alive to be kept as a pet my Sita piratti. Hari om Swathi - M.K. Krishnaswamy <krishnaswamy <Oppiliappan>; Bhakti-List <bhakti-list> Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:35 AM Doubts reg: Vali Vadham > Dear Rama Bhaktas, > > At the risk of a charge of repetition, > I would like to bring to your notice the following extracts > which are relevant in the present context. > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 Dear Swati, Note that there was a plan set by ravana to send Maricha as a Golden Deer to attract Seetha. In Aranya kandam Sargam 36 Slokam 17. Ravana says to maricha that "you go as a Golden Deer with silver dots on your skin and roam in front of rama's ashram in the vicinity of Seetha". Same is repeated by ravana again in Sargam 40 Sloka 17. In Aranya Kandam Sargam 43 Sloka 4 Lakshmana says to Rama that " i suspect this golden deer to be that maricha "(whose life was spared earlier). Keeping this in mind, let us see your question.(why did he kill deer when seetha asked only to catch it alive and wanted as a pet). In Aranya kandam Sargam 43 Sloka 18. Seetha tells rama that "if you cant somehow get it alive, atleast get the skin which will be liked by me" I think that your question is answered now. Regards, Nanmaaran alambda <alambda wrote:May I ask you, how Lord Rama has to kill the Golden Deer ( Maricha), when Sita only asked Rama to get the Deer for her Andhapuram. If Lord Rama was unable to get hold of the Deer, it is wise thing to let the deer go, than to Kill. What is the objective here for Killing the Deer, when it is meant to caught alive to be kept as a pet my Sita piratti. Hari om Swathi Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 Dear Lakshminarasimhan, I Intend to have a logical approach towards anything and gave the supporting slokams from Valmiki Ramayanam. Please refer the Literature or atleast check with a learned person before replying fast. For your recent response too, kindly refer Aranya kandam Sargam 44 Slokam 29 where Valmiki says that Rama removed the skin after killing maricha and returned to janasthana. Regards, Nanmaaran "Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhan" <nrusimhan wrote:Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Dear Swamin, "if you cant somehow get it alive, atleast get the skin which will be liked by me" was a statement that was made to show/highlight the beauty of the deer. Every statement should not be interpreted literally. Some people say, even if you mortgage your head you should get this done. Can this be done? And, if we make it look like, the udharana-purusha like Sri Rama, kills an innocent deer just for his wife's pleasure what would everyone think of? Even if Rama really killed that deer and the deer was not an asura, can we think he would have skinned it? On one side we praise Rama for giving saranagathi even to the worst enemy Ravana who grabbed his wife and on the other side do we need to insult his Pourusham by just saying that he killed the deer for his wife? And can we think that Rama(the master of the asthras) did not know an asthra by which he could have made the deer faint? What I have heard from elders is that, Rama knew it was a false deer. He ran behind it to make Sita happy and after Sita was out of the vicinity(because he cannot kill anyone in her presence due to her karunyam, example - kara-dhooshana samharam - sita was sent inside the house by rama) he killed the deer and the asura in that deer form shouted in Rama's voice and confirmed that he was a false deer. Please do not think I am trying to blame. But, we must really try to get the actual understanding from our elders and not by just reading books. That was the reason why Shri Ramanujar used a word "Tanmathaanusaarena" instead of "Tadaanusaarena". If you think I am really wrong in what I am saying, kindly forgive me and I won't comment on your statements any further. It is only out of interest and concern I am writing this mail and not because I want to blame you. If you think I am wrong, kindly mail me back. My humble apologies in case, even by smallest means, I have hurt you. Please do mail me back to this ID. Please do not post this message in the group. Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jaamaataram Munim Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan, Lakshmi Narasimhan bhakti-list, Nanmaaran wrote: > Dear Swati, > Note that there was a plan set by ravana to send Maricha as a Golden Deer to attract Seetha. > In Aranya kandam Sargam 36 Slokam 17. > Ravana says to maricha that "you go as a Golden Deer with silver dots on your skin and roam in front of rama's ashram in the vicinity of Seetha". Same is repeated by ravana again in Sargam 40 Sloka 17. > In Aranya Kandam Sargam 43 Sloka 4 > Lakshmana says to Rama that " i suspect this golden deer to be that maricha "(whose life was spared earlier). > Keeping this in mind, let us see your question.(why did he kill deer when seetha asked only to catch it alive and wanted as a pet). > In Aranya kandam Sargam 43 Sloka 18. > Seetha tells rama that "if you cant somehow get it alive, atleast get the skin which will be liked by me" > I think that your question is answered now. > Regards, > Nanmaaran > > > > > Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2003 Report Share Posted January 30, 2003 Dear Lakshminarasimhan, For your argument "IF IT WERE AN INNOCENT DEER, RAMA WOULDN'T KILL IT FOR SITA" , please refer Ayodhya Kandam Sargam 56 Slokam 25 to 32..It says clearly that RAMA asks Lakshmana to bring flesh of black Deer towards conducting Vasthu Shanthi for the Parnashaala. Lakshmana does that too. Kindly refer all the slokas which I have quoted and all are from Valmiki Ramayanam which our acharyas have been taking as a reference. Iam not quoting anything from external works. So there seems to me lot of hidden secrets in Marichan vadham too as Vali Vadham. We need to have dharmam as a reference when analysing Itihasams like ramayanam and mahabaratham not mere Bhakthi. Regards, Nanmaaran. "Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhan" <nrusimhan wrote:Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Dear Shri Swamin, Still missing the point!!! If the deer were an innocent one Rama would not have killed it and skinned it. My mail was an explanation to Smt Swati's mail. Her question was that when Seeta asked Rama to bring the deer back why did Rama Kill? Your answer was that Sita asked him to kill it if he can't get it alive. I felt that you should not have stopped with that because this would de-face Shri Rama's lakshanam. Point was that Rama KNEW that it was Mareecha(Lakshmana did warn him). And hence the killing of the deer is justified and the skinning of it too. Please don't miss to see the point I was stressing:) IF IT WERE AN INNOCENT DEER, RAMA WOULDN'T KILL IT FOR SITA. Everything worked out as per the plan - i.e Sita asked for the deer, which Rama could afford to kill(only because he knew that it was Mareecha). Perspective does matter! Killing Mareecha and skinning him is never denied. Archive Reference: http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/nov96/0065.html Reference - Swami Desikan - Raghuveera Gadhyam: mAricha mAyA mruga charma parikarmitha nirbhara dharbhAstharaNa ! Jaya! Jaya ! Translation - O Lord whose darbhAsanam is decorated by the skin of the deceitful mArichA , who appeared before You as a beautiful deer ! Hail to Thee! Hail to Thee! It is very easy to quote from literature if one knows the language of the literature and go through it. I would definitely love to quote the literature. But, as per our Shri Vaishnava Sampradayam, we learn from our elders and literatures are just for reference(not for interpretation). People need to know the appropriate context, the justification and the INNER meaning behind the same - which is done only by learned scholars in the tradition based on what they learnt from their acharyas(traces back to purvacharya) - and this is what I attempted i.e just provide the explanation given by elders. Kindly apologise my ignorace! Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan, Lakshmi Narasimhan Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 Dear Sri Nanmaaran and friends, My extremely tight schedule did not let me go through the mails for quite some time. I have not read all the mails under this caption and am not aware of when and how this deviation into the question of golden deer came up. I have a good leeway to make up and hope to catch up with the thread soon. In the meanwhile, from whatever I have gathered from the mails that I could read, let me try to go into the questions one by one: 1) Why did Rama go after the deer? Why could he not ask Lakshmana to go instead? The episode of the Golden Deer has to be looked at from the perspective of a couple, at least as far as Rama and Sita are concerned. It was the request of a wife who had so readily and joyfully accompanied him to the jungle, spent a good eleven years with him there, without complaining or railing the life in the jungle. A loving husband and a very affectionate wife. As far as Rama is concerned, this is a gift - the only gift thus far - that she is asking for from him in the last about (a little more than) ten years that they have spent in the forest. She is pleading with him like a child. Which husband would say 'no' to that request? Lakshamana did offer to go himself to capture the deer. But neither Rama nor Sita was for his going behind it. I will come to this point a little later. 2) Why did Rama kill the deer, when Sita asked him to capture it? And why did he skin it? Sita gave him both the options. Listen to her. She sounds like a joyous and excited child - the emotions reverberate even through the translation. "Wondeful is its colour and marvellous its splendour. The richness of its sound is also lovely. Endowed with spotted limbs, this wondeful deer captivates my heart as it were. **If the deer is caught by you alive, it will be a miraculous feat (on your part) and will cause wonder.** When we have concluded the term of our exile and are installed on the throne again, this deer will serve as an adornment to our gynaeceum. This weird and excellent deer will cause wonder, my lord, to Prince Bharata, to yourself, to my mothers-in-law and myself." (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto XLIII, Sloka 15-18) My limited time does not permit me to elaborate on this beautiful portion. Anyway, this would be discussed in detail in the series of articles I am presently writing. Sita does not stop there. She continues: "If (on the other hand) the jewel among the deer does not allow itself to be captured by you alive, its skin itself will afford delight, O tiger among men! When this animal has been killed by you, I long to sit with you on its golden skin spread on a mat of young grass." (Ibid, Sloka 19 and 20)" Sri Rama himself is of the same view. Listen to him, answering Lakshmana, who stops him saying that it is Marica who has come in the form of a deer. "Sita (a princess of the Videha territory) who is endowed with a slender waist, will sit with me on the most excellent golden skin of this jewel among the deer." (Ibid, Sloka 35) We have to understand one thing very clearly here. Sri Rama was born in the family of Kshatriyas. Hunting was a favourite sport of Kshatriyas. It was also a part of their duty, when coming to killling wild animals. Please bear with me for saying this. We should be wise enough to accept what the great Poet, Valmiki, has depicted. None of us is as competent as Valmiki, or more devoted to Sri Rama than him. Non-vegetarianism is sanctioned in the case of Kshatriyas. Right Hon'ble Srinivasa Sastriyar has pointed this out in his Lectures on the Ramayana. Therefore, let us not confuse ourselves with qualities like mercy, killing innocent deer et al. He was a kshatriya. Hunting was part of his life. He did not violate any dharma in killing 'an innocent deer.' 3) Did he not know that it was Marica, who has assumed this form, especially in the light of what Lakshmana said? He did not care, at least at that time. 'Either way, killing the deer is justified,' he says. 'If it is a true golden deer, let me try to capture it. If it evades me, I will kill and skin it.' "If, O Lakshmana, if this deer is such as you tel me, it must be put an end to because it is a phantom conjured up by an ogre." (Ibid, Sloka 38) 'If it is Marica, then he deserves to be killed. I have a valid reason for killing it.' I had occasion to point anther thing when I wrote on Marica in ChennaiOnline. Marica had, earlier, at the commencement of the period of exile, attempted to attack Sri Rama, Lakshmana and Sita, along with two of his friends, assuming the form of three deers. The two friends were killed by Sri Rama and Marica evaded his arrows once again. This is mentioned by Marica to Ravana, by way of advice, asking him to go back without pressing much on his plan. Kamban adheres to all that Valmiki has said. He does not deviate here from the core of the issue. There of course are other deviations, like the manner in which Sita applied pressure on Lakshmana to go in search of Rama, later. Now coming back to why Lakshmana was not allowed to go after the deer. Please remember once again that this is something very personal between the two of them. What she wanted was a gift and nothing could match the pleasure that a wife gets from her loving husband. She wanted him to do so personally. Ask any of our sisters here. They would acknowledge - as does the wife of every single one of us - that such a small thing as a string of flowers not more than six inches long becomes something very special, when it comes from the hands of the husband. Should we exclude Sita from this joy? Is she not fond of her own Rama? Is she not eligible for fulfilment of this simple desire of hers? The particular reference in Valmiki evades me now. I am not able to spot it. I have a vague recollection of having seen it. Since it is getting very late in the night, I have postponed the search for a later day. But Kamban does mention this very clearly and here is his verse. Ayidai annam annAL amuthu ukuththanaiya seyya vAyidai mazalai insol kiLiyinin kuzuRi mAzki **nAyaka nIyE paRRi nalkalai pOlum** ennA sEyarik kuvaLai muththam sinthupu sIRip pOnAL. When Lakshmana offered to go behind the deer, she was unhappy. Words dipped in nectar - the babble of a child - fell from the mouth of Sita whose gait resembled the swan. 'So my lord! Won't you go yourself to capture it and give it to me?' So saying she went towards the parna-sala, with feigned anger. What is known as Udal in Tamil literature. Which husband would say 'no' to these words! Does it not delight the heart of the reader to hear these words and to think of the way Rama's heart would have melted at these words! It is joy, pure joy ineffable, that is suffused in the verse above. 4) Why did Rama skin the deer? Kindly do tell me where either Valmiki or Kamban show Rama skinning the deer. Where did he have the time for it! He was alarmed when Marica mimicked his voice and came running back. The first thought that struck him was the way in which Sita would react. He thinks, "Since this notorious ogre has breathed his last uttering a loud wail: 'Alas Sita! Ah Lakshmana!' how will Sita feel on hearing it? And what moods will the mighty armed Lakshmana pass through?" (Ibid, Canto XLIV, Sloka 24 and 25{part}) Kamban shows him deriving consolation from the fact that the sagacity of Lakshmana would be able to put her at ease. Nonetheless Sri Rama virtually runs back to his abode, alarmed and anxious about the safety of Sita. When such being so, how could he have skinned the deer? Another interesting thing. Rama had not hesitated to cremate ogres that he had killed. That is shown explicity in the cases of Viradha and Kabandha! But he was left with no time to do so here, which he would doubtless have performed otherwise. And so, who cremated Marica! Not even Ravana! Ravana forced him into doing this against his will and promised him of kingdom, if he could achieve his purpose. He did not even have the basic courtesy, or the gratitude, or the need to comply with the demand of duty, to his maternal uncle, of cremating him. He could have assigned this job to someone else, at least after reaching Lanka! But that was Ravana. Anbudan, Hari Krishnan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 Dear Sri Nanmaaran, This comes as a surprise to me. Aranya Kandam, Canto 44 has only 27 Slokas, and I presume that Verse No.29 indicated in your mail must be a typo. The 27th Sloka is translated in the Gorakhpur edition as follows: "Having made short work of that uncommon spotted deer and taking fruits etc., fit for the consumption of ascetics, Sri Rama (a scion of Raghu) then hastily proceeded towards (his hermitage in) Janasthana." However, the following rendition is available at: http://www.valmikiramayan.net/aranya/sarga44/aranya_44_frame.htm nihatya pR^iSatam ca anyam maa.msam aadaaya raaghavaH | tvaramaaNo janasthaanam sasaara abhimukhaH tadaa || 3-44-27 27. nihatya+pR^iSatam+ca+anyam= killed, dappled, deer, also, another one; maamsam+aadaaya+ raaghavaH= flesh, on taking, Raghava; tvaramaaNaH+janasthaanam+ sasaara= hurriedly, to Jana sthaana, drifted; abhimukhaH+tadaa= towards [Janasthaana,] then. Then Raghava killed another dappled deer and on taking its flesh, he drifted towards Janasthaana, hurriedly. [3-44-27] I wish to draw attention the to the word 'another one'. It was not the golden deer that was skinned. I hope scholars would throw light on this point. Sincerely, Hari Krishnan - "Nanmaaran" <nanmaaran <bhakti-list> Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:31 PM Re: Doubts reg: Vali Vadham | For your recent response too, kindly refer Aranya kandam Sargam 44 Slokam 29 where Valmiki says that Rama removed the skin after killing maricha and returned to janasthana. | | Regards, | | Nanmaaran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2003 Report Share Posted March 11, 2003 Dear Sri Harikrishnan, I was bit busy in year end jobs and hence the delay in responding to your mail. Sorry for that. Basically iam referring to edition of Ramayanam for which details are as below. M.N.Ramaswami Iyer Memorial Edition By Late Rao Sahib P.S Krishnaswamy Iyer Published by Arsha Vidya Ashram Gurukulam Anaikatti PO, Coimbatore You Wrote: This comes as a surprise to me. Aranya Kandam, Canto 44 has only 27 Slokas, and I presume that Verse No.29 indicated in your mail must be a typo. The 27th Sloka is translated in the Gorakhpur edition as follows: Answer I have seen differences in number of slokas and the actual content itself in some editions. One I have has this sloka reference. You Wrote: nihatya pR^iSatam ca anyam maa.msam aadaaya raaghavaH | tvaramaaNo janasthaanam sasaara abhimukhaH tadaa || 3-44-27 Answer This is 28th sloka in the book I have. You Wrote: 27. nihatya+pR^iSatam+ca+anyam== killed, dappled, deer, also, another one; maamsam+aadaaya+ raaghavaH== flesh, on taking, Raghava; tvaramaaNaH+janasthaanam+ sasaara== hurriedly, to Jana sthaana, drifted; abhimukhaH+tadaa== towards [Janasthaana,] then. Then Raghava killed another dappled deer and on taking its flesh, he drifted towards Janasthaana, hurriedly. [3-44-27] I wish to draw attention the to the word 'another one'. It was not the golden deer that was skinned. I hope scholars would throw light on this point. Answer In the book which I refer, it is mentioned as below. Prisatam ca---“thOlai mattum” (tamil) Only Skin Anyam ----“vEraaka” (tamil) separated) it means that “separated the skin from the flesh” . Author interprets “anyam” as “vERaaga” does not refer to some other deer. And there is no neccasity to take some other deer when Sita asked for this deer. And for these questions, 1) Why did Rama skin the deer? Skinning the deer is explained only by Valmiki. For some reason Kamban omits that and says simply that Rama had returned back immediately. May be Kamban could not digest the contradiction and controversy in Valmiki's statements. The reference sloka in Valmiki is given above. 2) Why did Rama go after the deer? Why could he not ask Lakshmana to go instead? There is a Metaphysical answer for this which I will post later. Regards, Nanmaaran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.